Students’ perceptions of active learning: Experiences from a course on urban ecological research

Authors

  • Fritz Kleinschroth ETH Zürich

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.16906/lt-eth.v4i1.232

Abstract

Preparing the next generation to address current and future ecological challenges requires creative and collaborative ways of problem framing and solving. Active learning formats have the potential to support the development of skills needed to address these challenges. For future development of active learning formats, it is important to understand students’ perceptions of different aspects of their learning experience and outcomes. This article is based on students’ feedback from a practical course on urban ecological research. In small groups, students develop a hypothesis and research design, conduct fieldwork, and then analyse and present the results. After completion of the course, I collected qualitative feedback from students and then coded it to assess students’ perception of their active learning experiences, separated by course framing, group work and supervision. The results show that students appreciate the independence to explore real-world problems in a supportive group atmosphere. Within group work, the division of tasks is perceived to lead to more efficiency, but at the same time hinders learning new skills if roles are distributed based on existing experience. Further challenges stem from the trade-offs between students who prefer closer supervision with pre-provided contents and those who perceive close supervision as disruptive or a lack of trust. I discuss how, according to self-determination theory, the learning climate provided by course framing, group work and supervision can strike a balance between needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. To improve, I suggest a predictable supervisory structure and full transparency to students about the active learning goals and challenges.

References

Aguillon, S. M., Siegmund, G. F., Petipas, R. H., Drake, A. G., Cotner, S., & Ballen, C. J. (2020). Gender differences in student participation in an active-learning classroom. CBE Life Sciences Education, 19(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0048

Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001

Balint, P. J., Stewart, R. E., Desai, A., & Walters, L. C. (2011). Wicked Environmental Problems: Managing Uncertainty and Conflict. Island Press. https://books.google.ch/books?id=U6bzQqZEPiMC

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009). Promoting Self-Authorship to Promote Liberal Education. Journal of College and Character, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1079

Cavanagh, A. J., Aragón, O. R., Chen, X., Couch, B., Durham, M., Bobrownicki, A., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2016). Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0212

Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

Cho, H. J., Zhao, K., Lee, C. R., Runshe, D., & Krousgrill, C. (2021). Active learning through flipped classroom in mechanical engineering: improving students’ perception of learning and performance. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00302-2

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Teaching creative science thinking. Science, 334(6062), 1499–1500. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207918

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116

Deterding, N. M., & Waters, M. C. (2021). Flexible Coding of In-depth Interviews: A Twenty-first-century Approach. Sociological Methods and Research, 50(2), 708–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377

ETH Zürich. (2023). ETH Competence Framework. www.ethz.ch/comp-teachingstaff

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Giuliodori, M. J., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2006). Peer instruction enhanced student performance on qualitative problem-solving questions. American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00013.2006

Levesque-Bristol, C., Richards, K. A. R., Zissimopoulos, A., Wang, C., & Yu, S. (2022). An evaluation of the integrative model for learning and motivation in the college classroom. Current Psychology, 41(3), 1447–1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00671-x

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099359

Maiden, B., & Perry, B. (2011). Dealing with free-riders in assessed group work: Results from a study at a UK university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903429302

Schneider, F., Tribaldos, T., Adler, C., Biggs, R. O., Bremond, A. De, Buser, T., Krug, C., Loutre, M., Paulavets, K., Moore, S., Norstro, A. V, Urbach, D., Spehn, E., & Wu, G. (2021). Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: a strategic compass for global research networks. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.04.007

Smith, J. I., & Tanner, K. (2010). Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning The Problem of Revealing How Students Think: Concept Inventories and Beyond. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09

Smith, C. V, & Cardaciotto, L. (2011). Is active learning like broccoli? Student perceptions of active learning in large lecture classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 11(1), 53–61. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,cookie,uid&db=ehh&AN=58601456&site=ehost-live

Stauffacher, M., Walter, A. I., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., & Scholz, R. W. (2006). Learning to research environmental problems from a functional socio-cultural constructivism perspective: The transdisciplinary case study approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370610677838

Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8319–8320. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407304111

Zappe, S., Leicht, R., Messner, J., Litzinger, T., & Lee, H. W. (2009). “Flipping” the Classroom To Explore Active Learning in a Large Undergraduate Course. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--4545

Downloads

Published

2023-08-01